Bank Estimates - Home | Ozone Secretariat



MONTREAL PROTOCOL

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE

THE OZONE LAYER

[pic]

UNEP

Report of the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

April 2000

UNEP

Report of the

Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel

April 2000

Montreal Protocol On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

April 2000 Report

The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman.

Co-ordination: Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

Composition of the report: Walter Brunner

Suely Machado Carvalho

Lambert Kuijpers

Layout: Katherine Poulton, EPA Victoria, Australia

Gerald Mutisya, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP

Final editing: Lambert Kuijpers

Dawn Lindon, TUE Eindhoven, Netherlands

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi

Date: 26 April 2000

Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from:

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya

Normally from SMI Distribution Service Ltd., Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK

fax: + 44 1438 748844

This document is also available in portable document format from



No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: 92-807-1905-X

UNEP

Report of the

Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel

April 2000

Disclaimer

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-chairs and members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee, chairs, Co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation - more information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements will become available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.

UNEP, the TEAP Co-chairs and members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee, chairs, Co-chairs and members, and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Task Forces Co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing this information, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information.

Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product, either express or implied by UNEP, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Co-chairs or members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee chairs, Co-chairs or members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs or members or the companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgement

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, its Technical and Economic Options Committees and the Task Forces Co-chairs and members acknowledges with thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals and organisations who provided support to Panel, Committees and Task Forces Co-chairs and members. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel, the Committees and Task Forces and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.

The TEAP thanks the Environment Protection Authority, Victoria, Australia, for hosting the meeting of the TEAP where this report was discussed, composed and finalised.

UNEP Report Of The

Technology And Economic Assessment Panel

April 2000

Table of Contents Page

1 Introduction 11

2. Essential Use Nominations 13

2.1 Review of essential use nominations for MDIs 13

2.1.1 Review of nominations 13

2.1.2 Committee evaluation and recommendations 13

2.1.3 Observations 14

2.1.4 Future considerations 14

2.1.5 Recommendations for Parties’ Essential Use Nominations 15

2.1.6 Review of previously authorised Essential Uses (Decision VII/28 (2a) and (2b)) 17

2.2 Nomination by Poland for solvents used in the maintenance of oxygen systems of torpedoes 17

2.3 Laboratory and analytical uses 20

2.3.1 Introduction 20

2.3.2 The use of controlled substances for laboratory and analytical uses 21

2.3.3 Available alternatives for laboratory and analytical uses 21

2.4 Reporting Accounting Framework for Essential Uses 21

3 Response to Decision X/12 on feedstock applications 27

3.1 Introduction 27

3.2 CTC production and consumption 27

3.3 Potential future emissions of CTC used as a feedstock 28

3.4 Emissions of other Ozone-Depleting Substances arising from the use of controlled substances as feedstock 29

3.5 Conclusions 29

3.6 Calculation of 1998 production and emissions of CTC for feedstock use 30

3.6.1 Production of CFCs and CTC in 1998 30

3.6.2 Calculation of 1998 emissions of CTC from feedstock use 31

3.7 Code of Good Housekeeping (Manufacture) 31

3.7.1 Pre-delivery 31

3.7.2 Arrival at facility 32

3.7.3 Unloading from delivery vehicle 32

3.7.4 Testing and verification 32

3.7.5 Storage and stock control 33

3.7.6 Measuring quantities used 33

3.7.7 Facility design 33

3.7.8 Maintenance 34

3.7.9 Quality control and quality assurance 34

3.7.10 Training 35

3.8 Levels of production of Annex A Group 1 substances (CFCs) permitted under the Montreal Protocol 35

4. Report on New Substances 37

4.1 1-Bromopropane (also called n-propyl bromide, nPB) 37

4.1.1 Production of n-propyl bromide 37

4.1.2 Applications 37

4.1.3 Current consumption 37

4.1.4 Projected production and consumption 38

4.1.5 Alternatives to nPB 38

4.2 Halon 1202 38

5. Progress and Development in the Control of Substances 39

5.1 Aerosols, Sterilants, Miscellaneous Uses and Carbon Tetrachloride Technical Options Committee (ATOC) 39

5.1.1 Aerosol products (other than MDIs) 39

5.1.2 Metered dose inhalers 46

5.1.3 Sterilants 52

5.1.4 Carbon tetrachloride 53

5.2 Economic Options Committee (EOC) 55

5.3 Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC) 57

5.3.1 General 57

5.3.2 Technology status 57

5.3.3 Transitional status 61

5.3.4 Regulatory activities 62

5.3.5 Extruded polystyrene technology update 62

5.4 Halon Technical Options Committee (HTOC) 65

5.4.1 Progress in phasing-out halon production in China 65

5.4.2 A review of the use of halons by non-Article 5(1) countries in military applications and during peacekeeping and combat operations 68

5.5 Refrigeration Technical Options Committee (RTOC) 71

5.5.1 Introduction 71

5.5.2 Refrigerant data 71

5.5.3 Domestic refrigeration 71

5.5.4 Commercial refrigeration 73

5.5.5 Cold storage/ industrial refrigeration 74

5.5.6 Unitary air conditioning 75

5.5.7 Chillers 76

5.5.8 Transport refrigeration 77

5.5.9 Mobile air conditioning 77

5.5.10 Heat pumps (heating only and heat recovery) 79

5.5.11 Refrigerant conservation and emission reductions 80

5.5.12 The status of the refrigeration equipment sector in the Russian Federation 81

5.5.13 Technical progress in the developing countries and their concerns 83

5.6 Solvents Technical Options Committee (STOC) 87

5.6.1 New developments in alternatives to ozone-depleting solvents 87

5.6.2 Status of ozone depleting solvents used in the aerospace industry 87

5.7 Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) 89

5.7.1 Methyl bromide – Executive Summary 89

5.7.2 Methyl bromide production and consumption 96

5.7.3 Methyl bromide regulations and policies 102

5.7.4 Alternatives for soil treatments 105

5.7.5 Alternatives for durable commodities and structures 113

5.7.6 Alternatives for perishable commodities 125

5.7.7 Quarantine and pre-shipment 136

5.7.8 Reduction of methyl bromide emissions 139

5.7.9 References – Methyl Bromide 147

6 TEAP Co-ordination with the Framework Convention on Climate Change 165

6.1 Response to Parties by TEAP 165

6.2 Collaboration with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 166

7 Technology and Economics Assessment Panel (TEAP) 167

7.1 TEAP Operation 167

7.2 Networking with Ozone Agencies 168

7.3 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Co-chairs, Senior Expert Members and Members background information 169

7.3 2000 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 179

8 References 185

Appendix 1: TEAP /TOCs and Task Force Meetings period January 1999- July 2000 189

Appendix 2: Conferences and Workshops with Official TEAP/TOC Participation 1999 191

1 Introduction

Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol have taken a number of decisions, which request actions by the UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). Responses of the TEAP to the 1999 requests and to requests made in earlier Meetings of the Parties are presented in this April 2000 report.

It concerns requests made in the following decisions:

Decision VII/34 “Essential Use Nominations for Parties Not Operating under Article 5 for Controlled Substances”

In accordance with Decision VII/34(5) the essential use nominations are dealt with in Chapter 2 of this report. It concerns the essential use applications for ODSs for the year 2001 and beyond. This part of the report is of a similar set-up as the Essential Use chapters in the April 1998 and April 1999 TEAP reports.

Decision X/19 “Exemption for Laboratory and Analytical Uses”

This decision requests the TEAP to report annually on the development and availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be performed without using the controlled substances in Annexes A and B of the Protocol. Chapter 2 (section 2.3) contains the second response of TEAP to this decision. It should be noted that, in Decision XI/15, a number of uses were removed from the global exemption.

Decision X/12 “Emissions of ODSs from Feedstock Applications”

This decision requests the TEAP to report on: (i) emissions of CTC from its use as feedstock, including options individual Parties may consider for the reduction of such emissions; (ii) emissions of other ODSs arising from the use of controlled substances as feedstock; and (iii) the impact of the CFC production phaseout on the future use of CTC as feedstock and emissions from such use”. Chapter 3 of this report contains the information the TEAP has been able to collect.

Decision IX/24 “Control of New Substances with Ozone Depleting Potential”

In Decision VII/34 (c) the TEAP was requested to report on progress and developments in the control of substances each year. Decision IX/24 requests the TEAP to report to each ordinary Meeting of the Parties on any new substances with a certain Ozone Depleting Potential. As a follow-up to the Solvents TOC report given in 1999, this April 2000 report contains further information on the substance “n-propyl-bromide (nPB)”, on halon-1202 and new ozone deleting substances according to Decision IX/24, paragraphs 3 and 4 (Chapter 4 of this report).

Decision VII/34 “Progress and Development in the Control of Substances”

In Decision VII/34 (c) the TEAP was requested to report on progress and developments in the control of substances each year. This request was renewed in Decision X/17 “…to keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol informed of any important new developments on a year-to-year basis. Progress reports of the different TOCs (Aerosols, Economics, Foams, Halons, Methyl Bromide, Refrigeration and Solvents) can be found in Chapter 5 of this report.

Decision VII/34 “Background and Contact Information for TEAP Members and TOCs”

TEAP reported on progress towards improved geographical balance and other structural adjustments in past progress reports. Chapter 7 of this 2000 report presents further information on the operation of the TEAP and its TOCs, including some restructuring decisions taken. It also includes contact details of the TEAP members and membership lists of the different TOCs. It also gives background information of the TEAP members (Decision VII/34, paragraph (e)(iv)).

2. Essential Use Nominations

2.1 Review of essential use nominations for MDIs

Decision IV/25 of the 4th Meeting and subsequent Decisions V/18, VII/28, VIII/9 and VIII/10 set the criteria and the process for the assessment of essential use nominations for metered dose inhalers (MDIs).

2.1.1 Review of nominations

The review by the Aerosols, Sterilants, Miscellaneous Uses and CTC Technical Options Committee (ATOC) was conducted as follows. Three members of the ATOC independently reviewed each nomination. Members prepared preliminary reports, which were forwarded to the Co-chairs. The full committee considered the results of these assessments and drafted this report. For nominations where some divergence of view is expressed, additional expertise is sought.

Concurrent with the evaluation undertaken by the ATOC, copies of all nominations were provided to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). The TEAP was able to consult with other appropriate individuals or organisations in order to assist in the review and to prepare the TEAP recommendations to the Parties.

2.1.2 Committee evaluation and recommendations

Nominations were assessed against the guidelines for essential use contained in the Handbook on Essential Use Nominations. Further information was requested in case nominations were found to be incomplete.

The ATOC reviewed all of the nominations submitted for a production exemption. Production in this context includes import of ozone depleting substances for the purposes of manufacture.

In 2000 the following Parties nominated essential use production exemptions for MDIs (asthma and COPD).

|Country |2000 |2001 |2002 |

|Australia |(1) |( |( |

|European Community |* |* |( |

|Poland |(2) |( |( |

|USA |* |* |( |

*Approved in 1998 and 1999.

For the year 2000 the following applies to Australia and Poland:

1) Requested reduction in quantity for nomination previously approved by Parties in 1998.

2) Parties approved a nomination for 400 tonnes in 1998. During 1999, Poland requested an emergency essential use nomination for an additional 4.5 tonnes, which was recommended for approval by the TEAP.

2.1.3 Observations

No essential use nominations for the Russian Federation have been received for production of CFCs for MDIs for 1999 and beyond, even though information available to ATOC indicates that production of CFC based MDIs in the Russian Federation is continuing.

The ATOC understands that domestic manufacture of CFC based MDIs is taking place by one company using an estimated 100 tonnes of CFCs. A second company has recently established a new manufacturing facility for the production of salbutamol CFC based MDIs.

Local CFC production is anticipated to cease in mid-2000. Since no essential use nominations have been received for the last 2 years, the source of CFCs needed for current and future MDI manufacture is unclear.

2.1.4 Future considerations

Based on the experience of assessments of essential use nominations over a number of years, ATOC makes the following observations and recommends changes to the Handbook on Essential Use Nominations accordingly.

Current nominations include extensive information about the diseases treated by metered dose inhalers and information about the prevalence of asthma and COPD. This information provides justification in support of MDIs as essential uses under Decision IV/25. However, much of this data is repeated unchanged annually. The detailed information currently provided adds little to the nominations unless there have been some significant unforeseen developments. It is therefore recommended that in future years, unless the situation changes, information under section II, A(1) of the Handbook on Essential Use Nominations is not required if the proposed use is for the treatment of asthma and COPD. Under section I A, a statement that the proposed use is for MDIs for the treatment of asthma and COPD would be sufficient.

Other information currently not provided in nominations would better respond to Decision IV/25 and assist in the assessment of nominations. ATOC recommends the following additional information be provided, and proposes changes to relevant sections of the Handbook on Essential Use Nominations:

1. Expand information provided under section II, B(1) to include which CFC-free MDIs are currently licensed, as well as information showing trends in the availability and usage of non-MDI treatments (for example, oral therapies, dry powder inhalers, and novel inhaler devices) and the likely impact of these trends on the need for CFCs for MDIs in the year of the nomination.

2. CFC use for newly approved production of CFC based MDIs may not meet the requirements of essential uses under Decision IV/25. ATOC therefore proposes that section II, C(2) be expanded and nominations include a statement as to whether any CFC is being requested for any MDI approved in the year prior to the year in which the nomination is made. Nominations should also include information about the type of product and justification as to whether it is essential or not.

3. Expand section II F to provide for a statement in nominations about the proportion of the nominated quantity intended for use in MDIs for export and to certify that these exports are not to markets where these product(s) have been declared non-essential.

2.1.5 Recommendations for Parties’ Essential Use Nominations

Quantities are expressed in metric tonnes.

Australia

|ODS/Year |2001 |2002 |

|Total |74.95 |74.95 |

Specific Usage: MDIs for asthma and COPD

Recommendation: Recommend Exemption

Comments: The Australian nomination shows a commendable reduction in quantities of CFCs used, from 302 tonnes in 1993 to 136 tonnes in 1999. Australia notes a reduction in the expected quantities to be used in 2000 to 110 tonnes, compared with the previously approved quantity of 220 tonnes. ATOC notes a further reduction from the year 2000, to the nominated quantity of 74.95 tonnes for each of the years 2001 and 2002. The lack of continued reduction from 2001 to 2002 reflects a situation of declining domestic use, offset by increased exports to South East Asia, which is Australia’s main export market.

European Community

|ODS/Year |2002 |

|Total |2785 |

Specific Usage: MDIs for asthma and COPD

Recommendation: Recommend Exemption with recommendation to reduce stockpile as production declines

Comments: The general trend for a reduction in anticipated use of the total amount of CFCs is commendable.

Based on the current accounting framework data, the volume of CFCs on hand, during 1999 (4272 tonnes), appears to be significantly more than the nominated amounts expected to be used in the years 2001 and 2002. The stockpile of CFCs reported by the European Union has increased and appears to be sufficient for around eighteen months of production by 2002. This seems to be excessive and warrants further comment and elaboration from the nominating Party.

Poland

|ODS/Year |2001 |2002 |

|Total |320 |300 |

Specific Usage: MDIs for asthma and COPD

Recommendation: Recommend Exemption

Comments: The ATOC notes that overall nominated quantities for Poland continue to decline yearly and are projected to continue to do so through to 2004. The nomination would benefit from being unified by the Polish authorities, rather than individual company requests.

It appears in retrospect that the previously approved nomination for 2000 (400 tonnes) was more than adequate and that Poland’s emergency request in 1999 for 4.5 tonnes was unnecessary.

USA

|ODS/Year |2002 |

|Total |2900 |

Specific Usage: MDIs for asthma and COPD

Recommendation: Recommend Exemption

Comments: The volume of 2900 tonnes for the nomination for 2002 is approximately 6% less than the amount approved for 2001. It is also noted that there is a decrease of 22% in the US strategic reserve, as shown in the reporting accounting framework. The continued active management of this strategic reserve is commendable.

2.1.6 Review of previously authorised Essential Uses (Decision VII/28 (2a) and (2b))

Under Decision VII/28 (2a) and (2b), Parties decided that:

“(a) The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will review, annually, the quantity of controlled substances authorised and submit a report to the Meeting of the Parties in that year;

(b) The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will review, biennially, whether the applications for which exemption was granted still meets the essential-use criteria and submit a report, through the Secretariat, to the Meeting of the Parties in the year in which the review is made;”

The ATOC reviewed the essentiality of MDIs for asthma and COPD for 2001 and 2002 and concluded that they remain essential for patient health until an adequate range of technically and economically feasible alternatives are available.

New CFC-free product launches are likely to increase further over the next two years. As most nominations are received 2 years in advance, Parties may wish to continue to monitor and manage their own CFC acquisition and usage under authorised essential use quantities, and adjust their nominated quantities annually on an “as needed” basis. The ATOC will continue to monitor the changing market situation.

This year Australia requested in its essential use nomination a reduction in the nominated quantities to be used in 2000 to 110 tonnes compared with the previously approved quantity of 220 tonnes. The Parties may wish to consider noting this information in Decisions taken at their 12th Meeting.

2.2 Nomination by Poland for solvents used in the maintenance of oxygen systems of torpedoes

In 1997, Poland exercised its option under the Emergency Exemption (Decision VIII/9, paragraph 10). Import of 1,700 kilograms of CFC-113 for this use was authorised by the Secretariat after consultation with the TEAP and its STOC.

In 1998, Poland applied for 1700 kg of CFC-113 for use in each of the years 1999 through 2003.

In February 1998, the STOC requested additional information such as: substrate alloys for components and assemblies, types of coatings applied, types of non-metallic components used and type of grease to be removed and its liquefying temperature and approximate thickness of grease layer. Details of the grease-removing process and working conditions such as ventilation were also requested. Information was requested regarding problems that might arise from the use of recycled CFC-113, which alternative processes or substances have been evaluated and technical reasons for their rejection, types of tests carried out and criteria used for qualification.

TEAP considered this nomination and in its report of April 1998 documented that the STOC did not receive the information requested in February 1998 and, therefore, was unable to recommended this nomination for continued use. After considering the special circumstances, Parties approved the essential use.

In December 1998, TEAP Co-chairs asked the Head of the Ozone Protection Unit in Warsaw and the Head of the Polish Delegation, Ministry of Environmental Protection to organise a joint meeting with representatives of the Polish Navy, the manufacturers of the torpedoes and a team of STOC members. Kazakhstan was suggested as the venue. Subsequent direct communication between the Head of the Ozone Layer Protection Unit and a STOC Co-chair agreed on scheduling the meeting in Kazakhstan during 3 - 5 May 1999. There have been problems in receiving a proper response from the manufacturer of the torpedoes. STOC attempted to reschedule the meeting in September and in November 1999 but lack of information from the side of Kazakhstan prevented this.

TEAP therefore recommended that the nomination be forwarded to the 11th Meeting of the Parties to allow the opportunity to review supplemental information. Parties approved the essential use.

The Almaty (Kazakhstan) meetings (20-24 March 2000)

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of phasing out CFC-113 from torpedo oxygen systems maintenance. The tasks to be accomplished were defined by the STOC as follows:

• Clarification and presentation of torpedo maintenance procedures;

• Explanation of ODS-free technical options;

• Discussion of technical and regulatory problems in changing to ODS-free approaches;

• Formulate conclusions that would specify further actions to be undertaken to accomplish the objective of the meeting.

Mashzavod, the manufacturer of the torpedoes in Kazakhstan, will provide six- month-status updates on the evaluation of alternatives to the Polish Navy. STOC will provide additional technical options for consideration and evaluation by the manufacturer.

Meeting held at Polish Navy Headquarters in Gdansk on 27 March 2000

The objectives of the meeting were:

• To discuss any outstanding issues which needed clarification following the Almaty meetings;

• To provide further information to the Navy to assist in their efforts to phaseout CFC-113 in torpedo maintenance.

The main outcome of the meeting was the manufacturer's commitment to evaluate further technical options and the Navy’s commitment to perform and evaluate the unique flammability and compatibility tests on options suggested by the STOC.

The Navy also agreed to provide six-month-status updates on alternatives evaluation from the manufacturer and submit the STOC through the Polish Ozone Layer Protection Unit and the Polish Navy shall look into the possibility of utilising recycled CFC-113.

The STOC agreed to provide relevant information to the Navy on the practice of other naval and aircraft facilities on the qualification of alternatives for oxygen system maintenance.

Essential Use Nomination forwarded by Poland, February 2000

The recently received nomination from Poland for the torpedo oxygen system maintenance requests 0,85 metric tonnes of CFC-113 for each of the years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Based upon the commitments of torpedo manufacturer and of the Polish Navy to take positive action to eliminate the use of CFC-113 and because of the relatively long time needed for qualification of an alternative.

TEAP and its STOC recommend the Essential Use exemption by Poland for 0.85 tonnes for CFC-113 for 2001 only.

2.3 Laboratory and analytical uses

2.3.1 Introduction

Typical laboratory and analytical uses include: equipment calibration; extraction solvents, diluents, or carriers for specific chemical analyses; inducing chemical-specific health effects for biochemical research; as a carrier for laboratory chemicals; and for other critical purposes in research and development where substitutes are not readily available or where standards set by national and international agencies require specific use of the controlled substances.

The Parties to the Montreal Protocol decided at their 6th Meeting (Decision VI/9(3)):

“That for 1996 and 1997, for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, production or consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of ozone depleting substances for laboratory and analytical uses are authorised as specified in Annex II to the Report of the 6th Meeting of the Parties.”

The conditions for continuous use under the Global Exemption as specified in Decision VI/9(3), Annex II (See section 2.5 of the Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (UNEP, 1996)), include requirements that:

“Parties shall annually report on each controlled substance produced: the purity, the quantity; the application, specific test standard, or procedure requiring its uses; and the status of efforts to eliminate its use in each application. Parties shall also submit copies of published instructions, standard specifications, and regulations requiring the use of the controlled substances.”

The Parties, at their 10th Meeting, decided:

1. To extend the global laboratory and analytical essential use exemption until 31 December 2005 under the conditions set out in annex II of the report of the 6th Meeting of the Parties;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report annually on the development and availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be performed without using the controlled substances in Annexes A and B of the Protocol;

3. That the Meeting of the Parties shall each year, on the basis of information reported by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in accordance with paragraph 2 above, decide on any uses of controlled substances which no longer be eligible under the exemption for laboratory and analytical uses and the date from which any such restriction should apply.

Based upon information received from the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the Parties decided at their 11th Meeting:

“To eliminate the following uses from the global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses for controlled substances, approved in Decision X/19, from the year 2002:

a) Testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water;

b) Testing of tar in road-paving materials; and

c) Forensic finger-printing.”

2.3.2 The use of controlled substances for laboratory and analytical uses

The 1998 ATOC Assessment Report summarised reports from a number of Parties on the use of controlled substances for analytical uses. The European Union, Australia, the Czech Republic and the United States have adopted licensing systems in order to manage supplies into these applications. These systems license supplies to the distributors of controlled substances into the laboratory and analytical sector. Registration of the many thousands of small users in this sector is generally impracticable.

2.3.3 Available alternatives for laboratory and analytical uses

International and national organisations are working to eliminate the use of ozone depleting substances in many laboratory and analytical uses. Decision XI/19 taken in Beijing, which will eliminate three major uses from 1 January 2002, provides an example of such work. Further reports are now anticipated from the Parties on alternatives that have been identified and are now available or analytical methods that do not require the use of ozone depleting substances. The ATOC will report on these in future years.

2.4 Reporting Accounting Framework for Essential Uses

See next page.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

3 Response to Decision X/12 on feedstock applications

3.1 Introduction

Carbon tetrachloride (CTC) is an easily manufactured chemical that is widely available. CTC has been extensively reviewed in the 1994 and 1998 Reports of the Aerosols, Sterilants, Miscellaneous Uses and Carbon Tetrachloride Technical Options Committee. Specific applications of CTC have been investigated in the 1995 Report of the Process Agents Working Group and were further elaborated on in the 1997 Process Agents Task Force Report (PATF); review can also be found in the 1995 Report of the Laboratory and Analytical Uses Working Group. Inadvertent emissions and Process Losses were discussed in the 1994 Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). Atmospheric emissions of CTC were estimated in the 1998 ATOC Assessment Report.

In Decision X/12, Parties to the Montreal Protocol requested TEAP to investigate the use of CTC as feedstock and to report to the Parties at their Twelfth Meeting in respect of the following:

(a) Emissions of CTC from its use as feedstock, including currently available and future possible options individual Parties may consider for the reduction of such emissions;

(b) Emissions of other ozone-depleting substances arising from the use of controlled substances as feedstock;

(c) The impact of CFC production phase-out on the future use of CTC as feedstock and emissions from such use.

The 1997 Process Agents Task Force Report defined feedstock as:

“A controlled substance that undergoes transformation in a process in which it is converted from its original composition except for insignificant trace emissions as allowed by Decision IV/12.”

3.2 CTC production and consumption

CTC is normally produced by the high temperature chlorination of propylene or methane, known as chlorinolysis. Other starting materials have been used. Most production facilities that manufacture CTC alone have been closed in non-Article 5(1) countries. Some facilities can produce CTC and perchloroethylene as joint products - these latter facilities can usually be tuned to produce either 100 percent perchloroethylene or 100 percent CTC through recycling within the plant.

In the past, data on both CTC production and consumption have been difficult to obtain. This has been mainly due to the confusion existing regarding the reporting of feedstock uses, confusion between feedstock applications and process agent uses, and a lack of detailed knowledge on other, unspecified uses of CTC. A number of countries have mistakenly reported as consumption the amount of CTC used as feedstock for CFC production.

The new UNEP data reporting formats are enabling the collection of much clearer data and will enable a more detailed analysis of CTC uses. Calculated total CTC requirement for CFC production was calculated from CFC production reported to UNEP for 1998 as 203,017 ODP tonnes (section 3.6).

Using the same methodology to that used in the 1998 ATOC Assessment Report, emissions of CTC used as feedstock to manufacture CFCs in 1998 are estimated to be 26,378 metric tonnes (-25 percent, +50 percent).

Potential measures to reduce emission of CTC as feedstock for CFC production have been described previously in the 1994 ATOC Assessment Report, and remain relevant in 2000 (reproduced here in section 3.7).

3.3 Potential future emissions of CTC used as a feedstock

The 1998 ATOC Assessment Report provided an estimate of emissions of CTC from feedstock use. Using the methodology described in Annex 2 of that Report, emissions of CTC as a feedstock for CFC manufacture can be estimated for the period of phase-out of CFC production and consumption, established under the Montreal Protocol and its adjustments and amendments (including those agreed at the 11th Meeting of the Parties in Beijing, 1999; section 3.8). This estimate can be considered as a ‘worst case’ as it makes the assumption that production of CFCs in both Article 5(1) and non-Article 5(1) countries will be at the level permitted under the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. In reality, it is anticipated that such levels will not be reached.

Table 3.1: Total estimated emissions from the use of CTC as a feedstock to manufacture CFCs

|Year |CTC Emission |

| |(metric tonnes) |

|2000 |26,087 |

|2003 |25,512 |

|2005 |9,727 |

|2007 |2,918 |

|2010 |0 |

Note: in line with the errors quoted in the 1998 ATOC Assessment Report the accuracy in the estimates varies from -25% to +50%.

3.4 Emissions of other Ozone-Depleting Substances arising from the use of controlled substances as feedstock

TEAP and its TOCs have been unable to update available data on these other feedstock uses, but will be collecting this information for their 2001 reports. TEAP is investigating the establishment of a TEAP Task Force on Process Agents, which will be working during 2000 and 2001 and which will also be instrumental in this data collection.

3.5 Conclusions

CTC remains a widely available and used chemical. The primary source of atmospheric emissions of CTC is from its use as a feedstock to produce CFCs. This was estimated in 1996 by ATOC to be between 67 to 71 percent of total CTC atmospheric emissions. The majority of the emissions from feedstock use originates from CFC production in CEIT and Article 5(1) Parties.

CTC atmospheric concentrations have been reduced as a result of the phase-out of CFC production by non-Article 5(1) Parties and will fall significantly in the near future as CFC and CTC consumption in Article 5(1) countries will be phased out.

A number of measures have been previously suggested by the ATOC, which could lead to reductions in CTC emissions to the environment:

• Closure of CFC manufacturing facilities in CEIT and Article 5(1) Parties with accelerated introduction of alternatives;

• Use of improved emission control technology in CTC and CFC manufacturing facilities in all countries.

Due to the complexity of the industries using CTC, ATOC recommends that closure of facilities or improved emission control technology be considered on a case by case basis taking into account technical, economic and environmental considerations.

3.6 Calculation of 1998 production and emissions of CTC for feedstock use

3.6.1 Production of CFCs and CTC in 1998[1]

Table 3.2: Article 5(1) Parties (1998) (ODP tonnes)

| |Reported CFC production |Calculated CTC requirement for CFC |

| | |production |

|Argentina |2,962 |4,147 |

|Brazil |7,986 |11,180 |

|China |55,402 |77,563 |

|India |20,013 |28,018 |

|Korea, Dem. Rep |200 (est) |280 (est) |

|Korea, Rep |5,528 |7,739 |

|Mexico |5,252 |7,353 |

|Venezuela |3,652 |5,113 |

|TOTAL |100,995 |141,393 |

Table 3.3: Western Europe and others (1998) (ODP tonnes)

| |Reported CFC Production |Calculated CTC requirement for CFC |

| | |production |

|European Union |32,278 |41,961 |

|Japan |0 |0 |

|USA |243 |316 |

|TOTAL |32,521 |42,277 |

Table 3.4: Eastern Europe (1998) (ODP tonnes)

| |Reported CFC Production |Calculated CTC requirement for CFC |

| | |production |

|Czech Republic |6 |8 |

|Russian Federation |13,808 |19,331 |

|TOTAL |13,814 |19,339 |

Table 3.5: Totals (1998) (ODP tonnes)

| |Reported CFC Production |Calculated CTC requirement for |

| | |CFC production |

|Non-Article 5(1) producers |46,335 |61,624 |

|Article 5(1) producers |100,995 |141,393 |

|TOTAL |147,330 |203,017 |

Notes to the Tables: CTC requirements have been calculated by multiplying the CFC production by a factor that converts CFC ODP tonnes to CTC ODP tonnes. This factor is 10 percent greater than the one that would be used to calculate the amount of CTC needed to produce a tonne of CFC. In the 1998 ATOC Assessment Report the values of 1.14 and 1.3 were given for CFC-11 and CFC-12 respectively. Therefore, factors of 1.3 for the “Western Europe and Others” group (Table 3.3) and 1.4 for the Article 5(1) Parties and Eastern Europe (Tables 3.2 and 3.4) were used here. Reports of negative CFC production have been discounted.

3.6.2 Calculation of 1998 emissions of CTC from feedstock use

Using the 1998 UNEP data (Tables 3.2 - 3.5), CTC emissions from feedstock applications can be estimated by multiplying the calculated CTC requirements for the respective regions, with the emission percentages (the methodologies for calculating the emission percentages are given in the 1998 ATOC Assessment Report). Data taken from Tables 3.2 - 3.4, are divided by 1.1, to convert from ODP tonnes to metric tonnes.

Western Europe and others (42,277/1.1) x 0.04 = 1,537 tonnes

CEIT (19,339/1.1) x 0.17 = 2,989 tonnes

Article 5(1) Parties (141,393/1.1) x 0.17 = 21,852 tonnes

Total CTC emissions from feedstock uses = 26,378 tonnes

3.7 Code of Good Housekeeping (Manufacture)[2]

3.7.1 Pre-delivery

This refers to measures that may be appropriate prior to any delivery of CTC to a facility.

• Facility operator to generate written guidelines on CTC packaging/containment criteria, together with labelling and transportation requirements. These guidelines to be provided to all suppliers/senders of CTC prior to agreement to accept such substances;

• Facility operator to seek to visit and inspect proposed senders stocks and arrangements prior to movement of the first consignment. This is to ensure awareness on the part of the sender of proper practices, and compliance with standards.

3.7.2 Arrival at facility

This refers to measures to be taken at the time CTC is received at the facility gate.

• Immediate check of documentation prior to admittance to facility site, coupled with preliminary inspection of the general condition of the consignment;

• Where necessary, special or "fast-track" processing/repacking facilities may be needed to mitigate risk of leakage/loss of CTC;

• Arrangements should exist to measure gross weight of consignment at the time of delivery.

3.7.3 Unloading from delivery vehicle

This refers to measures to be taken at the facility in connection with unloading CTC. It is generally assumed that CTC will normally be delivered in some form of container, drum, or other vessel that is removed from the delivery vehicle in total. Such containers may be returnable.

• All unloading activities should be carried out in properly designated areas, to which restricted personnel access applies;

• Areas should be free of extraneous activities likely to lead to, or increase the risk of, collision, accidental dropping, spillage, etc;

• Materials should be placed in designated quarantine areas for subsequent detailed checking and evaluation.

3.7.4 Testing and verification

This refers to the arrangements for detailed checking of the consignments of CTC prior to use.

• Detailed checking of delivery documentation should be done, along with a complete inventory, to establish that delivery is as advised and appears to comply with expectation;

• Detailed checks of containers should be made both in respect of accuracy of identification labels etc, and of physical condition and integrity. Arrangements must be in place to permit repackaging or "fast-track" processing of anything identified as defective;

• Where required, sampling and analysis of representative quantities of CTC consignments should be carried out to verify material type and characteristics. All sampling and analysis should be carried out using approved procedures and techniques.

3.7.5 Storage and stock control

This refers to matters concerning the storage and stock control of CTC.

• CTC should be stored in specially designated areas, subject to the regulations of the relevant local authorities;

• Locations of stock items should be identified through a system of control that should also provide a continuous update of quantities and locations as stock is used and new stock is delivered.

3.7.6 Measuring quantities used

• It is important to be aware of the quantities of CTC used. Where possible, flow meters or continuously recording weighing equipment for individual containers should be employed. As a minimum, containers should be weighed "full" and "empty" to establish quantities by difference;

• Residual quantities of CTC in containers that can be sealed, and are intended to be returned for further use, shall be allowed.

3.7.7 Facility design

This refers to basic features and requirements of plant, equipment and services deployed in the facility.

• In general, any facility should be properly designed and constructed in accordance with the best standards of engineering and technology, and with particular regard to the need to minimise, if not eliminate, fugitive losses;

• In many cases the quantities of CTC used by a process can be significantly reduced by using recovery and recycling technologies;

• CTC, where possible, should be pumped from containers, not poured;

• CTC Pumps: magnetic drive, seals, or double mechanical seal pumps should be installed to eliminate environmental releases resulting from seal leakage;

• Valves: valves with reduced leakage potential should be used. These include quarter-turn valves or valves with extended packaging glands;

• Tank Vents (including Loading Vents): filling and breathing discharges from tank/vessels should be recovered or vented to the destruction process;

• Piping Joints: screwed connections should not be used, and the number of flanged joints should be kept to a minimum that is consistent with safety and the ability to dismantle for maintenance and repair;

• Drainage Systems: areas of the facility where CTC are stored or handled should be provided with sloped concrete paving and a properly designed collection system. Water that is collected should, if contaminated, be treated prior to authorised discharge.

3.7.8 Maintenance

In general, all maintenance work should be performed according to properly planned programs, and should be executed within the framework of a permit system to ensure proper consideration of all aspects of the work.

CTC should be purged from all vessels, mechanical units, and pipework prior to the opening of these items to the atmosphere. The contaminated purge should be routed to a recovery or destruction process.

All flanges, seals, gaskets and other sources of minor losses should be checked routinely to identify developing problems before containment is lost. Leaks should be repaired as soon as possible.

Consumable or short-life items, such as flexible hoses and couplings must be monitored closely, and replaced at a frequency that renders the risk of rupture negligible.

3.7.9 Quality control and quality assurance

• All sampling and analytical work connected with the CTC, the process, and the monitoring of its overall performance should be subject to quality assessment and quality control measures in line with some recognised practices. This should include at least occasional independent verification and confirmation of data produced by the facility operators;

• Consideration should also be given to the adoption of quality management systems and environment quality practices covering the entire facility.

3.7.10 Training

• All personnel concerned with the operation of the facility (with "operation" being interpreted in its widest sense) should have training appropriate to their task;

• Of particular relevance is training in the consequences of unnecessary losses, and training in the use, handling, and maintenance of all equipment in the facility;

• All training should be carried out by suitably qualified and experienced personnel, and the details of such training should be maintained in written records. "Refresher" training should be conducted at appropriate intervals.

3.8 Levels of production of Annex A Group 1 substances (CFCs) permitted under the Montreal Protocol

Article 5(1) Parties:

Average of 1995-7 production = 107,293 ODP tonnes

Non-Article 5(1) Parties:

Average of 1995-7 production = 79,005 ODP tonnes

Table 3.6: CFC production permitted by year and CTC feedstock required by year (ODP tonnes)

|Year |Potential CFC production|CTC requirement |Potential CFC production|CTC requirement† |

| |in Article 5(1) Parties | |in non-A5 Parties | |

|2000 |107,293 |150,210 |79,005 |102,707 |

|2003 |107,293 |150,210 |63,204 |82,165 |

|2005 |53,647 |75,106 |39,503 |51,354 |

|2007 |16,094 |22,532 |11,851 |15,406 |

|2010 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

† Calculation level is 1.3 tonnes CTC per tonne of CFC produced, assuming that CFC production in the Russian Federation ceases in mid 2000.

Feedstock emissions of CTC can then be calculated from figures in Table 3.6, which are divided by 1.1 to convert from ODP tonnes to metric tonnes.

Table 3.7: Potential feedstock emissions of CTC

|Year |A5(1) CTC |A5(1) CTC |CTC emissions |Non-A5(1) CTC |Non-A5(1) CTC |CTC emissions |

| |require-ment in |require-ment in |(emission rate = |require-ment in |require-ment in |(emission rate = |

| |ODP tonnes |metric tonnes |17%) in metric |ODP tonnes |metric tonnes |4%) in metric |

| | | |tonnes | | |tonnes |

|2000 |150,210 |136,555 |23,214 |79005 |71,823 |2,873 |

|2003 |150,210 |136,555 |23,214 |63,204 |57,458 |2,298 |

|2005 |53,647 |48,770 |8,291 |39,503 |35,911 |1,436 |

|2007 |16,094 |14,631 |2,487 |11,851 |10,774 |431 |

|2010 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

4. Report on New Substances

4.1 1-Bromopropane (also called n-propyl bromide, nPB)

In compliance with Decision IX/24, the Solvents TOC evaluated the potential use of 1-Bromopropane (nPB) in the solvent sector. Other cleaning solvents or methods have been identified for all applications where nPB is used.

The 11th Meeting of the Parties requested that TEAP and the Science Panel give a combined assessment on the substance related to its ODP and impact on the ozone layer for consideration at the 12th Meeting of the Parties. N-propyl bromide has a highly uncertain ozone depleting potential. The only ODP reported so far is 0.026, which is similar to the one of HCFC-225.

The Science Assessment Panel indicates that the ODP will depend on the location (latitude) and season of emission. TEAP and its STOC will endeavour to estimate the latitude and season of possible emissions in the period 2000-2001.

4.1.1 Production of n-propyl bromide

At least six factories produce or are capable of producing n-propyl bromide -- three in the USA and one each in France, Israel and Japan, respectively.

4.1.2 Applications

N-propyl bromide is commercially marketed as a substitute for ozone-depleting solvents (CFC-113, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride and HCFCs) and non-ozone depleting chlorinated solvents (trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene and methylene chloride). Its solvency is similar to that of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and it is considered as a “drop-in” replacement for use in open-top vapour degreasers and for cold cleaning and precision cleaning. It may also be used for some electronics defluxing and as a solvent in aerosols, adhesives, and coatings and inks.

4.1.3 Current consumption

The best estimate of 1998 consumption is about 1,000 tonnes in Europe, about 600 tonnes in Japan, and about 600-1000 tonnes in the USA. Consumption in Article 5(1) countries is relatively small but is increasing quite rapidly. Total global consumption is currently between 2,000 and 5,000 tonnes per annum and is increasing.

4.1.4 Projected production and consumption

In 1999, the STOC estimated a range of potential commercial production based on assumptions of probable applications and pricing relative to competing solvents. With this scenario, it is estimated that over 50% of the sales of nPB will be in non-Article 5(1) countries. Four scenarios were developed with projected production and consumption estimated at 60,000 to 100,000 tonnes within 5 years.

4.1.5 Alternatives to nPB

Trichloroethylene, methylene chloride and perchloroethylene are alternatives for low-cost vapour-phase cleaning. Other alternatives include aqueous and hydrocarbon solvents. Other non-ozone-depleting halogenated solvents for vapour-phase cleaning include HFCs and HFEs.

4.2 Halon 1202

Halon 1202 is used in the aircraft engine nacelle fire protection system for three military aircraft types and for the protection of aircraft auxiliary power units. The 1993 estimated amounts of halon 1202 in aircraft fire protection systems are shown in Table 4.1. Based on the available information, use of halon 1202 for fire-fighting applications is diminishing.

Halon 1202 also finds very limited use in balancing apparatus used to reduce vibrations in moving parts. It is estimated that total use for wheel balancing application is less than 3 tonnes.

Halon 1202 is also used as a feedstock for halon 1211 production.

Table 4.1: Use of halon 1202 in aircraft fire protection systems

|Number of aircraft |Total installed quantity of halon 1202 |Annual use of halon 1202 for servicing and use |

| | |on fires |

| | | |

| ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download